Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 835–849 | Cite as

Using a computer-based learning task to promote work on mathematical relationships in the context of word problems in early grades

  • Viktor FreimanEmail author
  • Elena Polotskaia
  • Annie Savard
Original Article

Abstract

In Canada, as in other Western countries, solving word problems has comprised an important part of mathematics curricula. Traditionally, arithmetic thinking has largely been privileged as the main strategy for solving word problems at the elementary level, thus postponing the introduction of algebraic thinking to the secondary school. Drawing on the work of the Russian psychologist Davydov, we suggest that algebraic ways of thinking can be fostered as early as primary grades within the context of problem solving, thus enabling understanding of relational aspects of a problem’s mathematical structure. In particular, we used Elkonin and Davydov’s notion of learning activity to design a computer-based task that helps young students (ages 7–8) to analyse word problems and eventually engage in an algebraic way of thinking. The task also involves a whole-class discussion in which students probe their understanding of the problem and model its solution in a relational way, instead of instantly locking themselves into a numerical operation. Macro- and micro-levels of analyses were conducted using, inter alia, the lens of the didactical tetrahedron, which highlights the association between design of learning tasks and students’ capacity building in analysing and expressing relationships between quantities through non-numerical symbols. While further research on the relational approach is still needed, this paper demonstrates its potential to contribute to progressively shifting young children’s understanding from one that relies heavily on arithmetic processes toward one that builds on algebraic thinking.

Keywords

Learning task design Computer learning environment Algebraic thinking Mathematical problem-solving Analysis of the problem 

References

  1. Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2003). Savoirs, savoir-faire arithmétiques, et leurs déficiences. [Knowledge, arithmetic know-how, and their deficiencies]. In M. Kail & P. M. Fayol (Eds.), Les sciences cognitives et l’école. La question des apprentissages (pp. 307–351). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  2. Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (1996). Approaches to algebra: perspectives for research and teaching mathematics. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A.-A., & Janßen, T. (2013). Emergent tasks—spontaneous design supporting in-depth learning. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction Study 22 (pp. 153–162). Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Brousseau, G. (1988). Théorie des situations didactiques. [Theory of didactical situations]. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  5. Cai, J., & Knuth, E. J. (2011). Early algebraization: a global dialogue from multiple perspectives. New York: Springer .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: a knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carraher, D. W., & Martinez, M. V. (2008). Early algebra and mathematical generalization. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Lin, S.-F. (2006). Computer-assisted learning for mathematical problem solving. Computers and Education, 46(2), 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, D., Strømskag, H., Johnson, H. L., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Gardner, K. (2014). Mathematical tasks and the student. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.) Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 36 th Conference of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1) (pp. 117–143). Vancouver: PME.Google Scholar
  10. Davydov, V. V. (1982). Psychological characteristics of the formation of mathematical operations in children. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: cognitive perspective (pp. 225–238). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Davydov, V. V. (1988). Learning activity. Multidisciplinary Newsletter for Activity Theory, 1(1/2), 29–35.Google Scholar
  12. Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: a theoretical and experimental psychological study. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Elkonin, D. B. (1997). Psychical development in early years: selected psychological works, 2nd Edn. In D. I. Feldstein (Ed.), Moscow: Publishing of the Institute of Practical Psychology.Google Scholar
  14. Fagnant, A. (2005). The use of mathematical symholism in problem solving: an empirical study carried out in grade one in the French community of Belgium. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freiman, V., & Lee, L. (2004). Tracking primary student’s understanding of the equality sign. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 415–422). Kirstenhof, Cape Town, South Africa: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  16. Freiman, V., & Vézina, N. (2006). Challenging virtual mathematical environments: the case of the CAMI Project. In Proceedings of the ICMI Study 16: Challenging Mathematics in and beyond the classroom Conference, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  17. Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W., & Landis, J. (1996). Levels in conceptualizing and solving addition and subtraction compare word problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 345–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2012). Teachers’ work with resources: Documentational geneses and professional geneses. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived resources’: Curriculum material and mathematics teacher development (pp. 23–41). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Julo, J. (2002). Des apprentissages spécifiques pour la résolution de problèmes? [Specific learning to solve problems?] Grand N, 69, 31–52.Google Scholar
  20. Jupri, A., & Drijvers, P. (2016). Student difficulties in mathematizing word problems in algebra. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(9), 2481–2502.Google Scholar
  21. Kieran, C. (2011). Overall commentary on early algebraization: Perspectives for research and teaching. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 579–593). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top–down and bottom–up effects in comprehension: the CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39(2), 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, L., & Freiman, V. (2006). Developing algebraic thinking through pattern exploration. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 11(9), 428–433.Google Scholar
  25. Lesh, R., Galbraith, P. L., Haines, C. R., & Hurford, A. (2010). Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies. Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  27. Malara, N. A., & Navarra, G. (2002). Influences of a procedural vision of arithmetics in algebra learning. Paper presented at the Third European Congress on Mathematics Education-CERME 3, Bellaria, Italy.Google Scholar
  28. Mikulina, G. (1991). The psychological features of solving problems with letter data. In V. V. Davydov (Ed.), Soviet studies in mathematics education volume 6 psychological abilities of primary school children in learning mathematics (pp. 181–232). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  29. Nesher, P., Greeno, J. G., & Riley, M. S. (1982). The development of semantic categories for addition and subtraction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 13, 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novotná, J. (1999). Pictorial representation as a means of grasping word problem structures. Psychology of Mathematics Education 12. http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/education/research/centres/stem/publications/pmej/pome12/article10.htm. Accessed 23 Aug 2017.
  31. OECD (2012). Literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments: Framework for the OECD survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Pape, S. J. (2004). Middle school children’s problem-solving behavior: a cognitive analysis from a reading comprehension perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polotskaia, E. (2015). How elementary students learn to mathematically analyze word problems: The case of addition and subtraction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Montreal: McGill University.Google Scholar
  34. Polotskaia, E., & Freiman, V. (2016). Technopédagogie et apprentissage actif. Bulletin AMQ, LVI(3), 55–69.Google Scholar
  35. Polotskaia, E., Savard, A., & Freiman, V. (2015a). Duality of mathematical thinking when making sense of simple word problems: theoretical essay. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(2), 251–261.Google Scholar
  36. Polotskaia, E., Savard, A., & Freiman, V. (2015b). Investigating a case of hidden misinterpretations of an additive word problem: structural substitution. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(2), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies. [People and technologies]. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  38. Radford, L. (2012). Early algebraic thinking: epistemological, semiotic, and developmental issues. Plenary lecture presented at the 12th international congress on mathematical education. Korea: Seoul.Google Scholar
  39. Rezat, S., & Sträßer, R. (2012). From the didactical triangle to the socio-didactical tetrahedron: artifacts as fundamental constituents of the didactical situation. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(5), 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruthven, K. (2012). The didactical tetrahedron as a heuristic for analysing the incorporation of digital technologies into classroom practice in support of investigative approaches to teaching mathematics. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(2), 627–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Savard, A. (2008). Le développement dune pensée critique envers les jeux de hasard et dargent par lenseignement des probabilités à lécole primaire: Vers une prise de décision. [The development of critical thinking about games of chance and gambling through the teaching of probabilities in primary school: Towards decision-making] Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Quebec, Canada: Université Laval.Google Scholar
  42. Savard, A., & Polotskaia, E. (2017). Who’s wrong? Tasks fostering understanding of mathematical relationships in word problems in elementary students. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0865-5.Google Scholar
  43. Savard, A., Polotskaia, E., Freiman, V., & Gervais, C. (2014). Tasks to promote holistic flexible reasoning about simple additive structures. In The 38 th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education and the 36 th conference of the North American chapter of the psychology of mathematics education (vol 1, pp. 124–125). Vancouver: PME.Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt, S., & Bednarz, N. (2002). Arithmetical and algebraic types of reasoning used by pre-service teachers in a problem-solving context. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tall, D. (1986). Using the computer as an environment for building and testing mathematical concepts: a tribute to Richard Skemp. In Intelligence, learning and understanding in mathematics papers in honour of Richard Skemp (pp. 21–36). Warwick: Warwick University.Google Scholar
  46. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators. Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197–230). USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vergnaud, G. (1982). A classification of cognitive tasks and operations of thought involved in addition and subtraction problems. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: a cognitive perspective (pp. 39–59). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2002). Everyday knowledge and mathematical modeling of school word problems. In K. P. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, H. J. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 171–195). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). Pedagogicheskaia psikhologia [Pedagogical psychology]. In V. V. Davydov (Ed.). Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viktor Freiman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Polotskaia
    • 2
  • Annie Savard
    • 3
  1. 1.Université de Moncton, Campus de MonctonMonctonCanada
  2. 2.Université du Québec en OutaouaisGatineauCanada
  3. 3.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations